Memorandum in Support of Reply-Forgery

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

BETTY BRYAN, CATHERINE BRYAN3745 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA 92008PLAINTIFFS IN PRO SE760-458-3977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY BRYAN, CATHERINE BRYANandKOPOPELLI COMMUNITY WORKSHOP CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP, AS A COMPANY OWNED BY, GOLDMAN SACHS BANK, LITTON LOAN SERVICE, AS A COMPANY OWNED BY GOLDMAN SACHS BANK, GOLDMAN SACHS BANK AS ACTING TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE GSAMP TRUST 2006-HE3 MORTGAGE PASS THRU CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE3, DEMARCO FLETCHER, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BROKER AND SALES AGENT FOR GOLDMAN SACHS BANK , BILL KOCH IN HIS CAPACITY AS AGENT FOR SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. F/K/A FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP.STEPHEN C WICHMANN IN HIS CAPACITY AS AGENT FOR GOLDMAN SACHS BANK D/B/A MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. F/K/A FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORPORATION,RICK ARDISSONI. AND DOES individuals 1 to 100,inclusive; and all other persons and entities unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien, orinterest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs ownership, or any cloud upon Plaintiffs = title thereto, does

Defendants.

)))))))))))))))))) ) ))) ) ))) ) ))) ) ))) )

Case No: 3:10-CV-01605-CAB-KSC

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MTGLQ AND LITTON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION TO STRIKE A FALSE AND FORGED RIGHT TO CANCEL DOCUMENT

NO ORAL ARGUMENTS REQUESTED

Judge:Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo Department 2

Hearing: Time:

1 | MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MTGLQ AND LITTON’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE MOTION TO STRIKE A FALSE AND FORGED RIGHT TO CANCEL DOCUMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiffs, Catherine Bryan and Betty Bryan; respectfully submit this memorandum of

points and authorities in rebuttal to defendants MTGLQ Investors L.P. and Litton Loan Service

(hereinafter “opposing defendants”) improper and misleading opposition which endeavors to

entirely sidestep the issue of defendants submission of a fraudulent and forged RIGHT TO

CANCEL, in an effort to escape their culpability by artfully persuading the Court to disregard

all Plaintiffs pleadings and supporting evidence as “vexatious litigation,” unworthy of judicial

consideration.

Pro se Plaintiffs apologize to this Court for any previous or present errors in captioning or

other pleading deficiencies and ask that the court look to the merit of plaintiffs claims. ("The

assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the

name of local practice." (Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905)). Plaintiffs speculate

that the purpose and motive behind opposing defendants forgery was to evade Plaintiffs

Catherine Bryan, as co-owner of the subject property; extended three year RIGHT TO CANCEL

borrower Betty Bryan’s mortgage contact under TILA.

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 226.2(a)(11) , 226.15(a) and (b), 226.17(d), 226.23(a)(1). “ the creditor must deliver TILA disclosures including three copies of a signed RIGHT TO CANCEL signed by each person whose ownership interest in a dwelling is subject to the security interest, and each such person has the right to rescind” ( Westbank v. Maurer, 658 N.E.2d 1381 (Ill.App. 2nd Dist. 1995).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On November 8, 2005 plaintiffs Betty Bryan and Catherine Bryan signed loan

documents in the presence of Notary Bernice Marie Morris and loan officer Demarco

Fletcher, without being provided with any copies of the signed or unsigned documents,

and without being provided any NOTICE OF THE BORROWERS RIGHT TO

CANCEL.

2. Plaintiff Catherine Bryan was informed by loan officer Demarco Fletcher that 84-years

Borrower Betty Bryan, was approved for a Home Equity Home Improvement loan that

was essential to reimburse loan officer Demarco Fletcher for his own costs incurred in

emergency upgrades advanced to correct City of Carlsbad code violations and was


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/12cfr226.23.htm




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

further informed that the balance of the loan funds would be creatively used by loan

officer Demarco Fletcher to create an investment acquisition of two new properties; one

in Lakeside California and one in Ramona California .

3. Subsequently to the alleged loan funding the promised property acquisition never

materialized and shortly thereafter loan officer Demarco Fletcher couldn’t be located. A

criminal complaint against Demarco Fletcher and party was filed with the San Diego

district attorney as complaint # 07RE0161.

4. On November 3, 2008 Plaintiff Catherine Bryan filed San Diego Superior Court case 37-

2008-00095207-CU-OR-CTL and its related TRO against a November 5, 2008 sale of

her home of 60 years, which was served by FAX and certified mail to the Foreclosing

creditors ATTORNEY IN FACT Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing.

5. It is a matter of court record that defendant Select Portfolio Servicing Inc (SPS) claimed

to transfer servicing rights to plaintiffs mortgage, to defendant Litton Loan Service just

two days subsequent to being served to Plaintiffs complaint on November 7, 2008, and

never made an appearance in Court until SPS was served with a Notice of Default . ( see

exhibit I; partial copy of state court docket.)

6. Meanwhile defendant Select Portfolio Servicing Inc (SPS) aggressively pursued a non-

judicial foreclosure as the creditors attorney in fact, alleging a hugely inflated and

unsubstantiated amount of mortgage debt, and continued to refuse to provide the true and

correct payoff essential to plaintiffs ability to TENDER.

7. It has been established by the court record that on February 2, 2010 eviction defendants

Betty Bryan and Catherine Bryan were awarded possession of their home of 60 years at

3745 Adams Street in Carlsbad California but MTGLQ Investors L.P. still adamantly

refused to reconvey title to facilitate TENDER .

8. Between February 2010 and April of 2010 Attorney Edward Peckham , extensively

interviewed borrower Betty Bryan and Pro Se Plaintiff Catherine Bryan and Plaintiff

Betty Bryan, and on April 12, 2010 borrower Betty Bryan signed a contract for

representation with attorney Edward Peckham who substituted into Superior Court Case

37-2008-00095207-CU-OR-CTL adding borrower Betty Bryan as Plaintiff.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9. It is has been established by Court record that 9:00 am, on April 12 2010 in department

C-75, intervening Party MTGLQ Investors L.P., appeared telephonically and made an

Ex Parte Motion to Consolidate North County Regional Center wrongful eviction quiet

title case number 37-2009-00062883-CU-WE-NC filed against MTGLQ Investors L.P.,

on December 20, 2010 with Central Division civil case No. 37-2008-00095207-CU-

OR-CTL, Bryan v. Select Portfolio.

10. It is has been established by Court record that on June 30, 2010 Attorney Diane Beall

entered into a contingency fee agreement with Plaintiffs; Betty Bryan, Catherine Bryan

and Kokopelli Workshop Corporation taking over Superior Court Case 37-2008-

00095207-CU-OR-CTL from attorney Edward Peckham, representing thereafter

representing the interests of plaintiffs Betty Bryan, Catherine Bryan and Kokopelli

Workshop Corporation in the consolidated cases.

11. It is has been established by Court record that on June 23, 2010, attorney Diane Beall

determined the evidence on file was sufficient for Plaintiffs to prevail, paid the required

Jury fee deposits and entered a counter memorandum to set the consolidated case for trial

by jury. (exhibit I)

12. It is has been established by Court records that on August 2, 2010 defendants removed

case number 37-2008-00095207-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2009-00040923-CU-OR-NC

(consolidated) from San Diego Superior Court to Federal District Court. (document#1)

13. It is has been established by Court records that On March 30, 2011 Plaintiff Betty Bryan

traveled to the city of San Diego where she entered the UPS facility located at 501 W.

Broadway, Suite A, where she personally executed, signed and notarized the Affidavit

in support of her Motion For Summary Judgment (exhibit II)

14. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff Betty Bryan was transported in her wheelchair to the

offices of Aguirre Morris & Severson where she entered into and signed a retainer fee

agreement in the presence of expert witness Charles J. Koppa, attorney Mia Severson,

and Attorney Mike Aguirre. (exhibit III)

15. In has been established by Court records that Plaintiffs have had made multiple attempts

to TENDER their mortgage debt, which were all unfairly blocked when plaintiffs were

unfairly denied access to their abundant equity, proximally resulting in insufficient


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

financial resources to keep and maintain the services of counsel for almost four years of

intensive pre-trial litigation.

16. On January 25, 2012 Plaintiff Betty Bryan was released from the hospital to home

hospice care, where she still participates in reviewing and signing all proposed joint

pleadings jointly submitted by plaintiffs Catherine Bryan and Betty Bryan.

17. On the evening of Friday June 6, 2012, Opposing defendants electronically filed their

Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, including a brand new exhibit

never previously introduced in almost four years of pretrial litigation, as EXHIBIT 3 of

Document 163-2, Page 31 of 42; an alleged RIGHT TO CANCEL clearly showing the

forged signature of Catherine Bryam written in different handwriting and is spelled

differently than all the other signature provided by defendants as loan documents signed

that very same day in the concurrently submitted related exhibits ; such as Exhibit I; Page

20 of 42 which provides Plaintiff Catherine Bryan’s true signature.(see exhibit IV

herein attached)

18. Contrary to statements made in Opposing Defendants Opposition, Plaintiffs and

plaintiffs’ attorneys, have provided HAVE routinely endeavored to meet and confer and

provided a correct Certificate of Conference between Counsels in each and every Ex

Parte Application made to this Court from the inception of this matter.

19. Opposing Defendants utter lack of responsiveness to all Plaintiffs diligent requests to

simply provide a date they may be available to meet and confer in person are accurately

reflected in Exhibit V, an email from attorney Joseph E. Floren; that provides a true and

accurate chronology of Plaintiffs numerous requests for Opposing Defendants counsel to

provide a date they may be available for an IN PERSON MEET AND CONFER

CONFERENCE.

20. On June 23, 2012 Plaintiffs sent a certified letter addressed to Attorney Markert at 701

Palomar Airport Road, Suite 200, Carlsbad, California 92011, (also herein included as

exhibit VI) therein requesting information as to what address Opposing Defendants

agreed to accept service and paragraph # 10- 15 of which very clearly requested to be

provided a date to meet and confer as follows;

Regardless as to plaintiff Betty Bryans interests, I am ready and able to meet personally with you to discuss your proposed motions on my own behalf , if you will provide a time (allowing at least one to five days’ notice


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

so that I might arrange alternative care giving for Betty) I can arrange to come to discuss these issues at your office.

In the interest of facilitating a productive meeting I am herein providing the following outline of issued I would like to be discussed and resolved before your file your proposed motion to compel.

If the Court does not grant plaintiffs motion to compel an initial discovery conference and extend the current discovery deadlines (as provided by the Court in document 118; Case Management Conference Order regulating Discovery and other pretrial proceedings) counsels request for document production is moot, as your amended document production request was delivered to plaintiffs well past the deadline.

Assuming the court will grant plaintiffs motion to compel an initial discovery conference and concurrently extend the current discovery deadlines and in light of the fact that I must make special arrangements to travel to your office; is these any chance that you can agree in advance that this meeting will also serve to serve as a venue for a mandatory exchange of discovery materials, including a discussion of what the parties may desire to remain privileged and an exchange of our current lists of expert and any other witnesses for trial?(Mandatory informal disclosure, which was initially advocated by Wayne D. Brazil in 1978, 5 and later by William W. Schwarzer, 6 is designed to accelerate the exchange of basic information about the case and to eliminate the paper work involved in requesting such information. Each party is required to disclose to all opponents the identity of any person likely to have relevant information about the case, a copy or description of any relevant document, computations related to any category of damages claimed, and any insurance agreement likely to be involved in the case. The parties agree to make these initial disclosures based on all the information that is currently available to them. These initial mandatory disclosures, will assist Pro se plaintiffs and their prospective attorneys to prepare for more formal discovery. If defendants Litton Loan Service and MTGLQ Investors L.P. and their counsel insists on maintaining their former position that formal discovery has commenced; then pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants were served with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories on May 1, 2012 and it has been more than 45 days and no responses have been provided so will counsel agree that our meeting will also serve to meet and confer before Plaintiffs file a motion to compel answers to plaintiff First Set of Interrogatories.

In the interest of facilitating and increasing the flow of communication can defendants counsel further agree to exchange all pre-trial materials at the same meeting?

21. To date Opposing defendants attorney Sara Markerts has still not provided a tentative date

to discuss an out of Court resolution for discovery dispute issues , and meanwhile persisted

in sending Plaintiffs progressively more insistent -bordering on belligerent - emails implying

the Plaintiffs are not providing contact information or cooperating with discovery.

22. Paragraph # 1-5 of Plaintiff Catherine Bryan’s letter to Opposing defendants attorney

Sara Markerts clearly addresses counsels concerns about not being able to directly

interact with Plaintiff Betty Bryan as follows;

Plaintiff Betty Bryan and Plaintiff Catherine Bryan are temporarily camping out at my daughters’ home is Los Angeles California so that more than one care giver is available to stay at


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

hospice patient Betty Bryan’s side at all times. Plaintiff Betty Bryan’s condition varies from alert and lucid to distracted be pain and confused, and she cannot be transported to meet with you at your Carlsbad Office as she is constantly connected intravenously to morphine and life sustaining nutrient therapy.

As I mentioned in my emails, Plaintiffs are currently conducting face to face interviews with several qualified local attorneys who have expressed an interest in providing representation, and hope to secure counsel shortly, and can only commit to a date for depositions as soon as we secure appropriate legal representation

Meanwhile as her only child and hospice caregiver I faithfully attend to all Plaintiff Betty Bryan’s accounts , legal and business affairs, and a pending conservatorship will formalize my legal power to make financial and legal decisions on her behalf pursuant to her gradually diminishing mental incapacity.

Setting up a conservatorship for Betty turns out to be a very long and complex process that cannot be expedited. Plaintiffs estate specialist tells our family that he has completed the requisite petition together with all supporting paperwork establishing why a general conservatorship should be granted to me therein requesting my appointment as general conservator as her only child, officially allowing me to make all the requisite legal and financial decisions on Plaintiff Betty Bryan's behalf.

In the meantime as her caregiver, I read all the pleadings and paperwork that you send to us to her and inform her of every issue. I then discuss how plaintiffs might respond until plaintiffs can secure appropriate legal representation, in this matter and Plaintiff Betty Bryan agrees to and personally signs every pleading.

III. CONCLUSION

Herein attached are copies of Plaintiff Betty Bryans’ notarized affidavit and signed contracts

with her attorney representatives all demonstrating Plaintiff Betty Bryan has been actively

participated and is fully informed of the current status of this litigation. In any case, Plaintiff

Betty Bryans’ imminent death will very soon eliminate her as a plaintiff in this action.

Hindsight reveals that opposing defendants ultimately succeeded in their dilatory litigation

strategy to remove this case to Federal District Court on August 2, 2010, for the purpose of

unfairly delaying and complicating litigation, prevailing by attrition and entirely avoiding

serious charges of elder financial abuse. It is also easy to determine that opposing defendants

disingenuous emails were never at all intended for the purpose of negotiating any meaningful out

of court resolution of discovery dispute issues with plaintiffs, but were artfully constructed to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

support opposing defendants false contention that Plaintiffs and not Opposing Defendants are not

cooperating with their obligation to personally meet and confer to resolve discovery disputes

when IN FACT the opposite is true. It is also clear that opposing defendants hope to entirely

evade the serious charge of forgery and fraud in submission of a false and forged RIGHT TO

CANCEL document by convincing this court to disregard the evidence on the basis that pro se

plaintiffs pleadings are so muddled, incoherent, frivolous and incorrectly captioned that even

reviewing the evidence of fraud is merely wasting this Courts’ resources and time.

Vexatious litigation has been defined as any legal action undertaken , regardless of merits,

solely to harass or subdue an adversary; like the artful pasting together of certain sections of

Plaintiff Catherine Bryan’s emails in an attempt to erroneously portray that Plaintiff Catherine

Bryan has not cooperated defendants requests to meet and confer to resolve with discovery

disputes, or the vexatious action undertaken to intentionally causing this litigation to languish

by its strategic removal from Superior Court to Federal District Court for the wrongful purpose

of sidestepping elder financial abuse charges when the elderly borrower inevitably succumbed

to cancer. When all the above facts taken into consideration in light of opposing defendants

recent submission of a false and forged RIGHT TO CANCEL that has never been previously

submitted by any defendants in almost four years of pre-trial litigation, then perhaps this Court

should consider that Opposing Defendants are the ones engaging in vexatious litigation.

Forgery is defined as making, altering, use, or possession of a false writing in order to commit

a fraud. Pro se Plaintiff Catherine Bryan respectfully points out that she has brought clear

evidence of defendants’ forged right to cancel to the attention of the Federal District Court and

the Court should consider charging opposing defendants with obstruction of justice. (See In re

United States v. Erickson, 3d 1253, 1256 10th Cir. (1999)) where the Tenth Circuit held that a

company may be charged with obstruction of justice for producing a false document and the

Court held that, “The government met its burden in proving a violation of § 1512(b)(3) because

it had “presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that [the officer’s]

intent was to hinder the communication of truthful information to federal law.” ) (Also see in re

U.S. v. CARSON 52 F.3d 1173 (1995)) where the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

ruled that a defendant had violated the federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 USC § 1512(b)

(3), by creating a false document. )


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendants’ Improper Opposition seeks to sidestep, circumvent and avoid addressing the

forgery issue for the wrongful purpose inducing the Federal Court to overlook and disregard

defendants misconduct in forging, falsifying, and counterfeiting a RIGHT TO CANCEL

document by implying plaintiff Catherine Bryans claims should be entirely disregarded as

incoherent, improperly captioned pro se litigation. "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly

and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." (Elmore v.

McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905)

Please note for the record, Plaintiff Catherine Bryan is a well known prolific author of numerous

non-fiction articles published under the pen name of; Catherine Bryan Ibarra; for further

information on the non-fiction works of Catherine Bryan Ibarra, just enter her full pen name

into Google or any other search engine.

Respectfully Submitted on this day of July 9, 2012,

____________________________ Betty Bryan, Plaintiff In Pro Se

____________________________ Catherine Bryan, Plaintiff In Pro Se


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT I


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT II


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT III


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT IV


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT V


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EXHIBIT VI


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I Catherine Bryan plaintiff in the above entitled action do hereby certify that on July 9, 2012, I filed an original signed copy of the above-and-foregoing pleading with to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA and concurrently served a true and correct copy by mail to the following parties: Litton Loan Service and MTGLQ Investors L.P. c/o Sara L. Markert, Esq.at ATTORNEY SARA L. MARKERT, ESQ. HOUSER & ALLISON, APC 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 200, Carlsbad, California 92011 & Select Portfolio Servicing and Bill Koch c/o ; Wright, Finlay and Zak at 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 280, Newport Beach California 92660.

By: __________________________________ Catherine Bryan


Memorandum in Support of Reply-Forgery

Documents

Transcript of Memorandum in Support of Reply-Forgery